Obama To Announce His Supreme Court Pick Today

Who will it be?

(The Hill) President Barack Obama will announce his Supreme Court nominee Wednesday during an 11 a.m. event in the Rose Garden, according the White House. (WT-my money’s on Obama being 22 minutes late)

In an email message with the subject line “I’ve made my decision,” Obama did not name his pick. But he wrote that he searched for candidates who have an “independent mind, unimpeachable credentials, and an unquestionable mastery of law.”
The announcement will kick off a fierce confirmation battle with Republicans in the Senate, who have pledged to not hold hearings or votes on Obama’s nominee.

The president made reference to the coming battle, arguing it’s the Senate’s duty to give fair consideration to his nominee.

“I’m confident you’ll share my conviction that this American is not only eminently qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice, but deserves a fair hearing, and an up-or-down vote,” he wrote.

What will the GOP do? I’m in favor of holding long, long, long hearings. First in committee, which should take 5 or 6 months. Then, discussion in the full Senate, with a vote scheduled sometime in mid-November. Then the GOP should vote overwhelmingly against the candidate. Of course, that’s where it all breaks down, because, can we trust some in the Senate to stay strong? Perhaps that’s what Mitch McConnell was worried about when he said there would be absolutely no consideration on a SCOTUS pick till the new president is installed. Nor has McConnell backed down on that position.

Obama has reportedly narrowed his list to two people: Sri Srinivasan, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia; and Merrick Garland, the chief judge of the same court.

Both Democratic appointees have moderate reputations and were confirmed by the Senate with widespread Republican support.

Both are very moderate. Srinivasan is anything but a hardcore leftist ideologue (I looked at about 20 articles on him), and has been rather non-partisan. Judge Garland was called a “model, neutral judge” by SCOTUSblog back in 2010. This could be a fakeout by Obama, offering a very moderate judge, who may or may not swing the court to the Left, and then, when the GOP says “not going to happen”, Obama offers up a hardcore leftist, putting the blame on the GOP. This is Obama’s M.O. He likes to create fights.

It may be that the GOP controlled Senate needs to give the candidate a legitimate hearing, and possibly even a vote and an approval during this election year. They have to consider that 2016 isn’t just about who will be president, but about keeping the Senate, keeping the House and a large majority, and keeping all the positions at the State level.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

13 Responses to “Obama To Announce His Supreme Court Pick Today”

  1. Jeffery says:

    (WT-my money’s on Obama being 22 minutes late)

    The Republican leader, Trump, is ALWAYS late!

    So Obama offers up a moderate, well-respected nominee, confirmed at his current level by wide bipartisan margins, that normally would receive a fair hearing and this is evidence he trying to pull a fast one on the Rethuglicans??? Does that make sense? They can call his bluff by confirming a qualified moderate justice. But of course, they already have covered themselves in horseshit by refusing to consider a nominee at all.

    The Senate’s 7% favorability rating may be too high. No wonder the nation is considering Trump and Sanders.

  2. john says:

    I myself am perfectly willing to wait. After the last primaries all of the prediction/betting markets went up for putting a Dem in the White House. The average now shows a 72% chance of a Dem winning.
    The GOP is seen as too extreme

  3. Zachriel says:

    William Teach: What will the GOP do? I’m in favor of holding long, long, long hearings… Then the GOP should vote overwhelmingly against the candidate.

    The other, rather quaint notion is to consider the nominee based on qualifications.

  4. John says:

    So Teach are you planning on giving us an update on how late Obama was ?
    why do we never hear about lame duck senators?

  5. drowningpuppies says:

    Read that McConnell said he’s sticking with the Biden/Schumer/Reid rule and Obama can go fuck himself.

    Karma, hey?

  6. Jl says:

    “Nowhere…does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential appointees a vote.” Harry Reid, 2005. Ouch!

  7. Jeffery says:

    I was wrong on Congressional approval. It’s on the rise! In 2012 approval was 11.4%
    and four years later it has JUMPED to 12.4%

    And the vile Obama has placed a qualified jurist in nomination! The Repuglicans refuse to consider him because Negro.

    This should help their approval.

  8. Zachriel says:

    Jl: “Nowhere…does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential appointees a vote.” Harry Reid, 2005.

    While the Senate isn’t required to vote, they are required to provide advice and consent. That can mean stopping a nomination in committee, for instance. However, what is unprecedented, is refusing to consider any nomination, even before the nomination has been made.

    Ultimately, the Senate does have a duty to act, otherwise, you could argue they never have a duty to consider any nominee for any president of the opposite party.

  9. Jl says:

    “The Biden Rule….” A lame duck president in his final year shouldn’t send a nominee to the Senate

  10. gitarcarver says:

    There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee and the Senate should only examine whether or not the justice is intellectually capable, and an all-around good guy. That once you get beyond intellect, and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed.

    I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise AND consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record.


    When it comes to how checks and balances in our system are supposed to operate, the balance of power between the executive branch, Congress, and the judiciary, Judge Alito consistently sides with the notion that a president should not be constrained by either Congressional acts, or the check of the judiciary. He believes in the over-arching power of the president to engage in whatever policies the president deems to be appropriate.


    In all of these cases, we believe that the president deserves our respect as commander-in-chief, but we also want to make sure that the president is bound by the law — that he remains accountable to the people who put him there, that we respect the office, and not just the man, and that office is bounded and constrained by our Constitution and our laws. And I don’t have confidence that Judge Alito shares that vision of our Constitution.

    Senator Barack Obama, 2006

  11. Zachriel says:

    Jl: A lame duck president

    Is a president who is serving the remainder of their term after the election of a new president.

  12. Jl says:

    The Senate is advising “no” and not consenting. Doing their job. And as Obams can’t serve anymore, the result is the same

  13. Zachriel says:

    Jl: The Senate is advising “no” and not consenting. Doing their job.

    Ultimately, the Senate does have a duty to act, otherwise, you could argue they never have a duty to consider any nominee.

Pirate's Cove